Matthieu Jalibert et la théorie des 5% sur un match

As regards to SCs point that the performance has more weight than it would at SR level, that depends on a whole lot of other aspects. As I said, they were two very hap hazard teams and the only thing I was reading into it was the same sort of scrappyness Ratima failed to cope with and the speed in general this article says is one of the most advantageous assets (as apposed to Roigards strength) in 9's these days.

Ardie to 12, Sititi to 13, and Sotutu and Finau to 8/6.

Everyone already thinks that SR is weak because theres no longer anyone to challenge the top 4 kiwi sides, despite them not challenging them for over a decade already, so you might as well take them down to the other 8 teams level?

If the quality of the comp drops then it will lead to slower player development for those who play in this comp. It will lead to lower standards and a lower bar.

I don't really agree with that in and of itself. A competition where more games are contested is going to drive performances up. You just need to ensure there are those with that top level performance experience, like James O'Connor, they don't actually need them do be delivering that performance they're championing.

If the NZ teams were weakened to where all 12 teams were on a comparable level (theres always 4 NZ sides that are still the best in the world) I'd argue that actually increases everyones development. It's just key that players still know what that highest bar is even if theyre not reaching it.

Of course one of the most important aspects is the marketability of the competition as best in world. But as I say until the ABs return to the top noone is going to beleive that of SR so maybe now is a good time to try some changes?

I'm now reorganizing my thoughts on whether that had anything do to with Razor after how Ratima and Dmac got treated, not to mention a bunch of players closer to Razors own position and style/skills.

Of course I don't think he has a clue about what he's doing, but if you take him at his word, and I do, that's the conclusion. Because he certainly hasn't tried to widen his group by selecting the local talent when he had the chance to.

Then, as pointed out in a recent article, by the same author as this one I think, they went with what Razor would these days call the "quarter back" style 10 rather than a facilitator. This, along with a second playmaker, removed all desire to select alround players who have the skill to keep the ball alive and enable those wonderful team try's we used to see. We became 'strike' team with specific focal points, and a reliance on those players.

Two defend those players, and the idea itself I suppose, the two you name in particular were heavily affected by their concussions and the idea they can break a neck playing like they way they were. Neither were anything like that specifically due to injurys imo, this, combined with the same mentality that causes the team not to want to replace a future coach (Foster) with someone better, means they stuck with their man. There is also a heavy amount of fiscal perspective in things like investment in a player that dictated a lack of desire to move sooner (the delay in selecting someone like Mo'unga and using Scott as a 6 in conjunction with Ardie at 7).

Ah, yes, I see that you see. Yeah it was definitely another one of these pretty ideas like succession of coachs wasn't, naming the new 7 as captain, after McCaw. Combined with the look of your next paragraph, I'm going to suggest that again it is one of these 'AB philosophies' that are to blame of sticking with your investments till ruin or bust. I can't remember what injury Read had but there was also a conscious choice to play him tighter and we were robbed by his wide running and passing game by a loss of pace. But both of them were indicative of a lack of investment (by necessity no doubt) in securing talent behind them Lachlan was better than Cane for multiple years before he finally decided to go, guys you knew would deliver to a certain standard like Elliot Dixon, Squire, Robinson, Tuafua, even Messam, were constantly overlooked to play certain All Blacks into the ground and have them needing to be excluded from the start of SR seasons as a result. It's so indicative of now with players like Kirifi stonewalled to give Cane a farewell but more glaring grinding blood our of Ardie for one more performance. Not to mention passing up on players like Sotutu.

I see you have great names as well, fully agree, especially about how that Foster teams run ended. While I don't think you understand the dynamics of what selecting from overseas is likely involve, I'm on board, because I don't really care too much about SR. I'd prefer it if NZR had to do what you suggest and invest in the grass roots and NPC and everyone can turn up to a NPC game without paying a cent because the people involved are there for the love of the game.

Realistically though, and thinking with that All Black mindset of perfection, nothing should change until these problems weve highlighted with the setup, and this current coaches failings, have been fixed. Make the change to opening up when you don't need to open it up, that is the 7 point play to make.